Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2020 (2) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 1618 - SC - Indian LawsAppointment in the post of Principal at the Polytechnic colleges - Seeking declaration of Ph.D. being an essential qualification for the post of Principal at the Polytechnic colleges - interpretation of provisions of 2010 AICTE Regulations - whether the 2010 AICTE Regulations, in fact, make it mandatory for candidates vying for the post of Principal to possess a Ph.D. degree? - Conflict of interest - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the qualification table makes it obvious that there can be multiple HODs for different departments (like Engineering, Architecture, Hotel Management, Pharmacy etc). In order to be HOD of any such Department, a prospective candidate needs to have both Master's and Bachelor's degrees in the relevant field. Whereas candidates with a Ph.D. must have had 5 years of experience in the allied field, others without it must have worked for 10 years. Phrased differently, Ph.D. is not mandatory for HOD, and instead results in a 5-year relaxation in requisite work experience. In other words, Ph.D. has been treated equivalent to 5 years teaching experience. A candidate with Ph.D. degree can become HOD with merely 5 years of work experience, whereas candidates without Ph.D. need to work for 10 years. Although, requirement of experience for becoming Principal is 10 years uniformly, it comes with a stipulation that 3 years must have been spent as HOD or in an equivalent position. Thus, a candidate without Ph.D. would compulsorily need 10 years' experience for HOD and would need to work further 3 years in that capacity, i.e. for minimum of 13 years' experience to become Principal. Those with a Ph.D. on the other hand, can apply for principal-ship within 10 years, as they would have become eligible for HOD with 5 years experience, and could have completed the further 3 years term as HOD in the interregnum. Hence, hypothetically, there is a 5-year eligibility relaxation granted under AICTE Regulations to those with a Ph.D. Additionally, construction of 2010 AICTE Regulations this way, avoids conflict with the 2014 Chhattisgarh Rules, as extracted above. Even otherwise, given a choice between two interpretations, one which restricts the pool of applicants for public employment and another which enfranchises many, it would be fit the spirit of Article 16 that the expansive interpretation is adopted. Such a recourse would both provide opportunities to a wider meritorious class, will increase competition and concomitantly ensure meritorious selections. Does the 2016 AICTE Notification retrospectively 'clarify' eligibility conditions for appointment as 'Principal'? - HELD THAT:- The conclusion drawn by the High Court is erroneous for a variety of reasons. At the very outset, no attempt appears to have been made to determine the nature of the 2016 AICTE Notification, as to whether it supplements an obvious omission in the 2010 AICTE Regulations and most importantly its effect on those who have meanwhile acquired vested rights - 'Clarificatory' legislations are an exception to the general Rule of presuming prospective application of laws, unless given retrospective effect either expressly or by necessary implication. In order to attract this exception, mere mention in the title or in any provision that the legislation is 'clarificatory' would not suffice. Instead, it must substantively be proved that the law was in fact 'clarificatory'. The present case is one where except for the title, nothing contained therein indicates that the 2016 AICTE Notification was clarificatory in nature. The said Notification is framed in a question-answer style and merely restates what has already been made explicit in the 2010 AICTE Regulations. There seems to be no intent to alter the position of law but instead only to simplify what the AICTE had resolved through its original Regulation. The 2016 AICTE Notification is a response to the doubts put forth to AICTE by the public - Even if the 2016 AICTE Notification was clarificatory, it must be demonstrated that there was an ambiguity in the criteria for appointment to the posts of Principal, which needed to be remedied. Clarificatory notifications are distinct from amendatory notifications, and the former ought not to be a surreptitious tool of achieving the ends of the latter. If there exists no ambiguity, there arises no question of making use of a clarificatory notification. Hence, in the absence of any omission in the 2010 AICTE Regulations, the 2016 AICTE Notification despite being generally clarificatory must be held to have reiterated the existing position of law. Thus, there were no two interpretations possible, and hence Issue Nos. 48 and 64 of 2016 AICTE Notification have, in no uncertain terms, reprised the substance of 2010 AICTE Regulations. Whether retrospective changes in qualificatory requirements can affect the existing appointments? - HELD THAT:- There is no quarrel that the Appellants herein do not possess Ph.D. However, they satisfied the requirement of having fifteen years' experience (of which at least three years was as HOD) under the 2014 Chhattisgarh Rules and were found suitable for promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee on the basis of various other material. They have also been found in possession of one of the eligibility criteria prescribed under the 2010 AICTE Regulations - the Appellants' appointments ought to remain undisturbed in any eventuality. Conflict of interest - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the State Government had inducted Appellant No. 1 in a Committee which submitted the draft service rules. It is, however, difficult to accept (nor has it been alleged) that the said Appellant held a position through which he could influence the rule-making authority to exercise its powers under Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution as per his wishes. He was holding too small a position that no inference of his dominance in the decision making process can be drawn. The judgment of the High Court is set aside and the writ petition filed by Respondent No. 1 challenging the promotion of Appellants is dismissed - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|